What's new

China’s hawks demand cold war on the US

TruthSeeker

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
6,390
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
China’s hawks demand cold war on the US

MORE than half of Chinese people questioned in a poll believe China and America are heading for a new “cold war”.

The finding came after battles over Taiwan, Tibet, trade, climate change, internet freedom and human rights which have poisoned relations in the three months since President Barack Obama made a fruitless visit to Beijing.

According to diplomatic sources, a rancorous postmortem examination is under way inside the US government, led by officials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak.

In China’s eyes, the American response — which includes a pledge by Obama to get tougher on trade — is a reaction against its rising power.

Now almost 55% of those questioned for Global Times, a state-run newspaper, agree that “a cold war will break out between the US and China”.

An independent survey of Chinese-language media for The Sunday Times has found army and navy officers predicting a military showdown and political leaders calling for China to sell more arms to America’s foes. The trigger for their fury was Obama’s decision to sell $6.4 billion (£4 billion) worth of weapons to Taiwan, the thriving democratic island that has ruled itself since 1949.

“We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference.

He added: “We have nothing to be afraid of. The North Koreans have stood up to America and has anything happened to them? No. Iran stands up to America and does disaster befall it? No.”

Officially, China has reacted by threatening sanctions against American companies selling arms to Taiwan and cancelling military visits.

But Chinese analysts think the leadership, riding a wave of patriotism as the year of the tiger dawns, may go further.

“This time China must punish the US,” said Major-General Yang Yi, a naval officer. “We must make them hurt.”
A major-general in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Luo Yuan, told a television audience that more missiles would be deployed against Taiwan. And a PLA strategist, Colonel Meng Xianging, said China would “qualitatively upgrade” its military over the next 10 years to force a showdown “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US”.

Chinese indignation was compounded when the White House said Obama would meet the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, in the next few weeks.

“When someone spits on you, you have to get back,” said Huang Xiangyang, a commentator in the China Daily newspaper, usually seen as a showcase for moderate opinion.

An internal publication at the elite Qinghua University last week predicted the strains would get worse because “core interests” were at risk. It said battles over exports, technology transfer, copyright piracy and the value of China’s currency, the yuan, would be fierce.

As a crescendo of strident nationalistic rhetoric swirls through the Chinese media and blogosphere, American officials seem baffled by what has gone wrong and how fast it has happened.

During Obama’s visit, the US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, claimed relations were “really at an all-time high in terms of the bilateral atmosphere ... a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory”, according to an official transcript.

The ambassador must have been the only person at his embassy to think so, said a diplomat close to the talks.

“The truth was that the atmosphere was cold and intransigent when the president went to Beijing yet his China team went on pretending that everything was fine,” the diplomat said.

In reality, Chinese officials argued over every item of protocol, rigged a town hall meeting with a pre-selected audience, censored the only interview Obama gave to a Chinese newspaper and forbade the Americans to use their own helicopters to fly him to the Great Wall.

President Hu Jintao refused to give an inch on Obama’s plea to raise the value of the Chinese currency, while his vague promises of co-operation on climate change led the Americans to blunder into a fiasco at the Copenhagen summit three weeks later.

Diplomats say they have been told that there was “frigid” personal chemistry between Obama and the Chinese president, with none of the superficial friendship struck up by previous leaders of the two nations.

Yet after their meeting Obama’s China adviser, Jeff Bader, said: “It’s been highly successful in setting out and accomplishing the objectives we set ourselves.”

Then came Copenhagen, where Obama virtually had to force his way with his bodyguards into a conference room where the urbane Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, was trying to strike a deal behind his back.

The Americans were also livid at what they saw as deliberate Chinese attempts to humiliate the president by sending lower-level officials to deal with him.

“They thought Obama was weak and they were testing him,” said a European diplomat based in China.

In Beijing, some diplomats even claim to detect a condescending attitude towards Obama, noting that Yang Jiechi, the foreign minister, prides himself on knowing the Bush dynasty and others among America’s traditional white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant elite.

But there are a few voices urging caution on Chinese public opinion. “China will look unreal if it behaves aggressively and competes for global leadership,” wrote Wang Yusheng, a retired diplomat, in the China Daily.

He warned that China was not as rich or as powerful as America or Japan and therefore such a move could be “hazardous”.

It is not clear whether anyone in Beijing is listening.

China’s hawks demand cold war on the US - Times Online
 
.
little turbulence between the relationship of two nations, besides the silly and malicious deeds made by the US,nothing really serious would happen.
 
.
Typical third rate English yellow journalism - long on gossip and rich in innuendo - but otherwise almost entirely bereft of substance.

Apparently according to them, PRC and the US have just now entered a "cold war" - well were the paper's "journalists" on Mars over the last 10yrs?

PRC "ambushed" the US in Copenhagen? More like the other way around by my observation and from most objective non "Euro-centric" accounts. O well, if the Queen's correspondents insinuate so, then it must be true.

It's an open secret those who speak the Queen's English find Obama "uppity". But we all know they are too well-bred to, you know, let it out. But surely the Chinese must all feel the same about a "black" president, no? Well there is no reason why we can't plant a little innuendo. :azn:

Generals getting more hawkish? Maybe. However, I distinctively remember the last time around a lieutenant general threatened LA with something hot - nothing comparable has been heard yet. But we may - and we will wait and see.

Now, for training purposes, I have "pirated" the following from a well-meaning English man/woman off the WWW:


"Instructions

1. Know the proper etiquette when meeting royalty such as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who enjoys great popularity. Circumstances are more formal when the Queen is met by dignitaries and heads of state. Chances may be slim, but one might possibly meet the Queen at one of the garden parties or informal luncheon party at Buckingham Palace. A more likely meeting would be while the Queen is out on a royal walkabout. If you are lucky enough to receive a royal invitation and have any doubts about the proper etiquette to use, keep this rule in mind, do as she does.

2. Stand when the queen is entering the room. While it is not expected of you to bow, you may if you like. A lady may do a small curtsy and a man could bow his head from his neck. If she extends her gloved hand to you, simply touch her hand briefly. A firm handshake would be discouraged.

3. Address the Queen as "Your Majesty." Later on, each time you address her you would use "Ma'am." If you address others in the royal family, male or female, the initial greeting would be "Your Royal Highness" and follow with "Sir" or "Ma'am."

4. Pick appropriate topics of conversation. Don't discuss private issues or something you've read in the tabloids. Just because you read different aspects of hers or her families live doesn't make it appropriate between strangers.

5. Learn from mistakes in the past. Don't say "pleased to meet you." That's thought to be redundant because everyone is pleased to meet the Queen. Other things not to do include chewing gum, turning your back on her, wearing gloves, putting an arm around her, kissing her hand and continuing to eat once she has stopped."


Only with extensive etiquette drilling will the PRC diplomatic corp henceforth be allowed to enter Queen, I mean King Obama's presence.
 
.
Typical third rate English yellow journalism - long on gossip and rich in innuendo - but otherwise almost entirely bereft of substance.

Apparently according to them, PRC and the US have just now entered a "cold war" - well were the paper's "journalists" on Mars over the last 10yrs?

PRC "ambushed" the US in Copenhagen? More like the other way around by my observation and from most objective non "Euro-centric" accounts. O well, if the Queen's correspondents insinuate so, then it must be true.

It's an open secret those who speak the Queen's English find Obama "uppity". But we all know they are too well-bred to, you know, let it out. But surely the Chinese must all feel the same about a "black" president, no? Well there is no reason why we can't plant a little innuendo. :azn:

Generals getting more hawkish? Maybe. However, I distinctively remember the last time around a lieutenant general threatened LA with something hot - nothing comparable has been heard yet. But we may - and we will wait and see.

Now, for training purposes, I have "pirated" the following from a well-meaning English man/woman off the WWW:


"Instructions

1. Know the proper etiquette when meeting royalty such as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who enjoys great popularity. Circumstances are more formal when the Queen is met by dignitaries and heads of state. Chances may be slim, but one might possibly meet the Queen at one of the garden parties or informal luncheon party at Buckingham Palace. A more likely meeting would be while the Queen is out on a royal walkabout. If you are lucky enough to receive a royal invitation and have any doubts about the proper etiquette to use, keep this rule in mind, do as she does.

2. Stand when the queen is entering the room. While it is not expected of you to bow, you may if you like. A lady may do a small curtsy and a man could bow his head from his neck. If she extends her gloved hand to you, simply touch her hand briefly. A firm handshake would be discouraged.

3. Address the Queen as "Your Majesty." Later on, each time you address her you would use "Ma'am." If you address others in the royal family, male or female, the initial greeting would be "Your Royal Highness" and follow with "Sir" or "Ma'am."

4. Pick appropriate topics of conversation. Don't discuss private issues or something you've read in the tabloids. Just because you read different aspects of hers or her families live doesn't make it appropriate between strangers.

5. Learn from mistakes in the past. Don't say "pleased to meet you." That's thought to be redundant because everyone is pleased to meet the Queen. Other things not to do include chewing gum, turning your back on her, wearing gloves, putting an arm around her, kissing her hand and continuing to eat once she has stopped."


Only with extensive etiquette drilling will the PRC diplomatic corp henceforth be allowed to enter Queen, I mean King Obama's presence.

Yes, yes, you're the only person on this giant rock who can "properly" use English words to describe himself. Get a life, as long as people can express themselves, who the heck cares about SAT style vocab. You need to honestly get a life and stop showing off buddy.
 
.
Yes, yes, you're the only person on this giant rock who can "properly" use English words to describe himself. Get a life, as long as people can express themselves, who the heck cares about SAT style vocab. You need to honestly get a life and stop showing off buddy.

What happened to your country-of-origin flag and your "studies", little bud_bud? Did I stop you from "expressing" yourself?

SAT? :yahoo:

SAT is your problem not mine. :hang2:

I did my TOEFL yyyyears ago.
 
Last edited:
.
Well I should probably be more "sensitive", lockh33d/little bud_bud. For all I know your @ss could be hiding in LA. Who knows, another 朱成虎 opens his trap and things could get unpleasant.

Maybe that's why you are not showing your country-of-origin flag ...
 
. .
Here begins the decline of Peoples republic of china.

Lets await a soviet style implosion very soon.

Heyhey, implosion there may yet be. But it's heartening to see the English having you trained so well, so right on Cue ...

Here begins the ascension of Narad's Bharat - I suggest this as the next Sunday Time's title. :smitten:
 
.
No, be logical. Cold war is a self destruct mode for at least one of the participants. I cannot forsee this happening to America. So good luck to PRC then.
 
.
No, be logical. Cold war is a self destruct mode for at least one of the participants. I cannot forsee this happening to America. So good luck to PRC then.

Well, the Chiamerica economy is tie together for the soviet era cold war to take place.
 
.
No, be logical. Cold war is a self destruct mode for at least one of the participants. I cannot forsee this happening to America. So good luck to PRC then.


Well, you could be right, Narad.

However, your "logic" is only sound if your assumptions are valid. Do you think Gorbachev would've chosen the course he took, and more importantly, the Soviet Army would've sided with Yeltsin had they been able to foresee how things were to unfold?

Hindsight to predict the "end of history" was 20/20. The prevalent Russian view, however, was that the Soviet Union did not die of homicide, but rather from "suicide". They "imploded" only because they wanted to.

They thought they had enough and maybe they did.

Will the PRC feel the same way in due time? Or will they dig in and "fight for wrath, for ruin, and the red dawn?" We all live only once and life is finite to begin with. Will a country view things through the same nihilistic lens?

I don't have any answers but you seem to have it all figured out.

Well good luck in Mumbai.

:cheers:
 
.
Well, you could be right, Narad.

However, your "logic" is only sound if your assumptions are valid. Do you think Gorbachev would've chosen the course he took, and more importantly, the Soviet Army would've sided with Yeltsin had they been able to foresee how things were to unfold?

Hindsight to predict the "end of history" was 20/20. The prevalent Russian view, however, was that the Soviet Union did not die of homicide, but rather from "suicide". They "imploded" only because they wanted to.

They thought they had enough.

Will the PRC feel the same? Or will they dig in and "fight for wrath, for ruin, and the red dawn?" We all live only once and life is finite to begin with. Will a country view things through the same nihilistic lens?

I don't have any answers but you seem to have it all figured out.

Well good luck in Mumbai.

:cheers:

Well It would be foolish to assume that history would follow the same 'script' it did a few years back. Time is pretty innovative by itself.

Basically, a cold war sort of phenomenon essentailly takes a toll of either one or every participants. So in case of a cold war confortation between communist China and democratic USA, I would like to place my bet on Americas victory as every authoritative regime has a fixed and limited "Shelf-life".

Plus we are not very sure whats cooking inside PRC. Satisfaction or dissatisfaction among the masses for the communist regime. It is only by means of some chinese members living outside china, that we get to hear stuffs which are otherwise well concealed by the authorities. All those weak points that led the fallof soviets came to light only after the implosion. So I am not too sure and no means to confirm that "aal izz well" in PRC,
 
Last edited:
.
Well It would be foolish if you assume that history would follow the same 'script' it did a few years back. Time is pretty innovative by itself. Rest all is too offtopic to respond.

Let me put my views in simpler words so that you avoid bickering next time.

Basically, a cold war sort of phenomenon essentailly takes a toll of either one or every participants. So in case of a cold war confortation between communist China and democratic USA, I would like to place my bet on Americas victory as every authoritative regime has a fixed and limited "Shelf-life".

Plus we are not very sure whats cooking inside PRC. Satisfaction or dissatisfaction among the masses for the communist regime. It is only by means of some chinese members living outside china, that we get to hear stuffs which are otherwise well concealed by the authorities. All those weak points that led the fallof soviets came to light only after the implosion. So I am not too sure and no means to confirm that "aal izz well" in PRC,


"Aal izz well"? Why would you be so generous? I can tell you no one else is. There is no question that the PRC is busting at the seams on a whole range of issues.

I am with the "experts" here in holding a view that the PRC is "fragile". But how fragile?

OTOH, do you know what's cooking in the US? Domestically I mean? You think you do. Well ...

It's getting off topic.

My view is that every generation lives in "interesting times" ...
 
. .
a little different topic than the usual india-china and india-pakistan ones..
carry on guys...:cheers:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom